Appearing on the "front page" of the May 10, 2010 issue of satirical newspaper, The Onion, was the following story: "Exhausted Noam Chomsky Just Going To Try And Enjoy The Day For Once" (read the article here). And here he sits....
At first glance, you might be thinking that he is imitating Congress: arms folded, silent, a look of utter disdain toward whatever it is that transfixes his gaze. Nay. On the contrary, the man is depicted searching (and searching hard) for some momentary tranquility.
The idea of Noam Chomsky coupled with the notion of a willing intellectual moratorium is oxymoronic indeed. And I have to admit that, when I saw Chomsky’s photo beneath the headline, part of me anticipated a lampooning about the pejorative S-word (sociali—I won’t say it) that has been thrown around in the popular media as of late, what with Obama’s health care plan, the ailing economy, and especially Chomsky’s longstanding advocacy of voluntary sociali—. The media, however, will need to tire of that one before Chomsky ever does. That, and they are certainly more occupied with the oil spill as of late.
My first encounter with Chomsky’s work came in my undergraduate years in a class on advertising and socio-political communication in the never-flagging mass media. While I did not (and still don’t) fully ascribe to many of his seemingly fatalistic views about power relations and their effects on citizen-subjects (and the individual’s apparent lack of agency against corporate/state manipulation), I was and since have been impressed by the force of his public intellectualism. To be sure, regardless of whether or not one agrees with his or any public intellectual’s views, it is difficult to overstate the importance of such criticism in the popular discourse. So when I finished laughing at the thought of Chomsky calling it quits—even for just a day—I had a slight sense of disappointment coupled with an internal monologue that consisted of another, far less tainted S-word.
After all, many of us are still saddened by the recent loss of Howard Zinn; and, let’s face it, figures like Chomsky are not getting any younger, so one wonders who will be in the next class of public intellectuals (there was recently published a "Top 100" list that contains some noteables and some promising hopefuls). Political dissidents or not, public intellectuals serve a vital function in tempering everyday discourse—especially today’s, which is “filtered” by huge conglomerates, centralized and oftentimes uni-vocal news outlets, political agenda-setters, and capitalist motives. Yet public intellectualism has a long history, stretching from Socrates through Dante to Emerson to more recent figures like Edward Said, Cornel West, Judith Butler, etc., all of whom have confronted real, pressing problems in everyday life.
The paradox, of course, is that Chomsky himself is somewhat of an anti-intellectual. That is, he has long been critical of esoteric, unintelligible philosophy that makes it even more difficult to look outside of an existing hegemonic structure that already has enough safeguards of its power built within. There are resonances of Gramsci here, who did not think counter-hegemonic discourses could emerge from either “traditional” or “organic” intellectuals, but rather intellectuals of/for the working class. What is more, as Chomsky would attest, there is a fine line between deception and self-deception.
Hence why Chomsky argues that neither science nor philosophy (either a critique thereof or a reliance upon) is not enough to break through the “institutional racism,” “colonialist ideologies,” or “state-sanctioned propaganda.” As he said in a recent interview: “Advocacy requires more than just a proposal.” I could give you an example (to borrow one of Chomsky’s favorite phrases), but I am limited here by space and time. But I will propose that we follow Chomsky’s lead, even how it is portrayed in the Onion article: to be ever-cognizant of the power of human language to impact how we behave, how we organize, what we believe, what motivates us. Further, that part of the challenge of the twenty-first century has to be finding ways to accept divisions humanely, and then to look for solutions beyond the presumption that all problems are first and foremost economic (or what Chomsky would call "state-capitalist"). That Chomsky is a relentless critic is no doubt important. Yet even he could use a break, as there certainly is more to life than seeking out examples of human turpitude. I think, however, that we would all do well to err more often on the side of active and human criticism, even self-criticism, as we balance our political and personal lives. After all, the two are not nearly as distinct as we might think, which is indicated by the anti-intellectual himself, Chomsky, who cannot truly break away. Still, it is quite productive to, from time to time, step back and laugh at the moments in which we take ourselves too seriously.
As Oscar Wilde put it: “Life is far too important to be taken seriously.” Perhaps this is sentiment is more on the way to life understood as the comfortable illusion....
For a more "serious" account of but one of Chomsky's recent exploits, though, see the following article on Chomsky being denied entry into Israel. As disappointing as it is, we must find a way to realize that at least one response is laughter.
Photo credit: The Onion.
No comments:
Post a Comment